Resolutions 1994-1995

Archived 1994-1995 Resolutions

Resolutions 1994-1995———————————————–1. Class Schedules2. Concerning Tenure, Mandatory Reviews3. 1994-1995-34. 1994-1995-45. Minimum Semester Hours6. Add/Drop Procedures7. Concerning Tenure8. Honorary Degrees9. Emeritus Status10. ACFS Representative11. Budget Funding12. Naming University Facilities13. Graduate Studies (not approved)14. Resource Allocation Models15. Topic Courses

Resolution 1994-1995-1 Class Schedules

WHEREAS,

1. Enrollment growth at the University of Central Florida has greatly increased demands on classroom facilities, and
2. Construction of new classroom facilities has not kept pace with increases in student enrollment, and
3. Current course scheduling practices throughout the University may not promote efficient use of limited classroom facilities, particularly with respect to full utilization of facilities on Fridays and schedule conflicts resulting from differing course slots across colleges

BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Central Florida restructure the present class schedule starting with the Fall 1995 semester to achieve greater efficiency of classroom use, including an expanded class day (Monday through Friday, and alternate days) and consistency of schedules across colleges. Details of the revised schedule shall be developed by the Administration with opportunities for input and review by the colleges and departments. Preservation of a weekly time slot with no classes scheduled is necessary to accommodate campus wide meetings

Approved by the Faculty Senate on October 6, 1994.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on October 26, 1994.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on November 14, 1994.

Resolution 1994-1995-2 Concerning Tenure

Present SUS policy requires that a faculty member shall normally be considered for tenure during the fifth year of continuous service in a tenure earning position. Each faculty member shall be apprised in writing once each year of their progress towards tenure. This is a separate component of the annual evaluation and is intended to provide assistance and counseling to candidates to help them qualify themselves for tenure.

At present, annual appraisal of progress towards tenure is initiated by the department chair. With the transition at all levels of administration, performance appraisal for progress towards tenure may lack consistency over the probationary period and the process may vary from academic unit to academic unit.

In an attempt to provide additional feedback to the candidate as to the progress towards tenure and to ameliorate inconsistencies which may later emerge at tenure decision time between various recommending groups, be it therefore resolved:

There shall be a comprehensive review conducted at the end of three years of tenure credit for tenure earning faculty by a committee of the candidate’s department. This committee shall be comprised of at least three elected tenured members of the department.

Based on the established guidelines for tenure appraisal, this committee shall make an evaluation and assessment of progress in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement based upon a file submitted by the candidate shall be summarized on the tenure appraisal form and reported to the candidate and department chair.

Approved by the Faculty Senate December 8, 1994.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on December 9, 1994.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on January 5, 1995.

Resolutions 1994-1995-3 and 1994-1995-4

Please note: Resolutions 1994-1995-3 and 1994-1995-4 were not brought to the full Senate.

Resolution 1994-1995-5 Minimum Semester Hours

WHEREAS:

1. Current policy (as stated in the 1994-95 Undergraduate Catalog, p 70) for designation of baccalaureate honors is based on grade point calculations and requires that students complete a minimum of 48 semester hours at UCF, and
2. Present practice for administration of this policy has been to preclude use of credit-by-examination or pass/fail credits to satisfy this minimum semester hour requirement, and
3. Numerous requests for waiver of these policies have been received from students,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty of the University of Central Florida affirm the present policy regarding minimum semester hour requirements and the exclusion of credits received by credit-by-examination and pass/fail grades to satisfy minimum requirements. Clarifying language shall be included in the Undergraduate Catalog to note the exclusion of credit-by-examination and pass/fail grades for satisfaction of minimum semester hour requirements.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 16, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on March 15, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995.

Resolution 1994-1995-6 Add/Drop Procedures

WHEREAS:

1. Enrollment growth at the University of Central Florida has greatly increased demands on classroom facilities, and
2. Many course sections are routinely closed to students who would otherwise enroll in these sections due to room capacity limitations, and
3. Current procedures are not effective for identification of students who may have preregistered for a course but do not intend to maintain their enrollment (no shows,) and
4. These circumstances result in the denial of access to course sections which are effectively below enrollment caps,

BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Central Florida adopt procedures to facilitate identification of true enrollment in course sections and to provide opportunities for students to ADD courses consistent with true enrollments and section capacities. Specifically, it is proposed that students not in attendance at the first class meeting be DROPPED to provide access for other students. Implementation of this policy shall be at the discretion of individual departments in consultation with individual instructors, to begin with the Fall 1995 semester. It shall be the responsibility of the student to contact the instructor in advance of the first meeting in those cases where the student desires to remain in the course but is unable to attend the first class. It shall also be the responsibility of the student to take whatever steps are necessary to determine if they have been officially dropped from a course and/or to DROP courses which they do not intend to complete. Students who have been DROPPED from a course by this procedure may pursue re-enrollment via normal ADD procedures.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 16, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on March 15, 1995.
Update from Provost Whitehouse dated May 2, 1995: Still being reviewed by the Deans and the Provost’s Office.

Resolution 1994-1995-7 Concerning Tenure

WHEREAS:

1. At present there are no specific UCF tenure criteria, and
2. There is a need to update and streamline tenure procedures,

BE IT RESOLVED the following be adopted as tenure policy at UCF.

6C7-3.011 TENURE

1. Scope and General Policy

1. This rule shall apply to all faculty members. However, in the case of non-unit faculty the provisions of Article 20 of the BOR/UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement shall not apply. For those (non-unit) members, grievances shall be processed in accordance with UCF Rule 6C7-3.132 FAC.
2. University of Central Florida adheres to the Board of Regents rules governing tenure (6C-5.225 and 6C-1.10(2)(h)).
3. University of Central Florida adheres to the provisions of BOR/UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement dealing with tenure procedures.
4. There should be sufficient discipline flexibility in interpretation of the standards for tenure so that individuals may have reasonable expectation of fulfilling the requirements.
5. A faculty member should normally be recommended for promotion to associate professor prior to or at the same time that tenure is recommended. To save time for both faculty members and committees, the application for both status changes should go forward simultaneously. A positive vote for promotion to associate professor should precede the vote on tenure at department, college, and university levels.

2. UCF TENURE CRITERIA

1. “Tenure is that condition attained by the faculty member through highly competent teaching and research, or other scholarly activities, service, and contributions to the university and to society.” (BOR 6C-5.225(2) (a))

   “Nomination of a general faculty member for tenure shall signify the president is satisfied the candidate will continue to make significant professional contributions to the university and the academic community generally.”(BOR 6C-5.225(5)(b))

2. Tenure is an employment classification achieved by the faculty member and is based on demonstrated ability and performance in the areas of teaching, research, other scholarly activities, and service. For tenure, performance over the entire term of appointment at UCF must be considered. For candidates with prior credit towards tenure, performance before appointment at UCF must also be considered.
3. The quality, quantity and consistency of such performance must provide evidence of the candidate’s value to the university and assurance of potential for the future.
4. In general, the standards of performance expected for tenure in teaching, research, scholarship, and service shall be the same as for the rank the candidate will hold for the year in which tenure will be awarded.
5. Candidates for tenure must have demonstrated effectiveness in teaching. Evaluation of teaching by peers, students, administrators, and candidates themselves as well as teaching related scholarship will be considered in assessing competency in teaching and teaching effectiveness. Development of innovative course materials and teaching methodology, curriculum development, special teaching responsibilities, awards or other public recognition of teaching, and other teaching related activities will also be considered in assessing competency in teaching and teaching effectiveness.
6. It is the responsibility of the candidate to see that the tenure file is accurate and complete.

3. PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING TENURE

1. At the time a faculty member becomes eligible for tenure consideration, he/she shall submit an application in accordance with the application format available from the Office of Academic Affairs. Normally, a faculty member consults with the appropriate department chair or unit administrator before submitting an application. A faculty member may choose to proceed with the application without an endorsement from the department chair. In accordance with the BOR/UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement, untenured faculty members have the opportunity to request exclusion of service (“stop the clock”) for leaves of absences.
2. Outside Review: Each faculty member being considered for tenure will have relevant material from his/her application submitted to four outside experts for evaluation. The outside experts are to be selected using the following procedures:
1. The department chair and the department promotion and tenure committee will jointly select a panel of four outside reviewers and the faculty member being considered for tenure will nominate a panel of four outside reviewers. The final panel of outside reviewers will consist of four persons: two selected by the faculty candidate from the panel proposed by the chair and the promotion and tenure committee, and two selected by the chair and the promotion and tenure committee from the panel proposed by the faculty candidate. When a department chair is under consideration for tenure, his/her dean will appoint a person to participate in the tenure process in the role of the chair’s supervisor.
2. Outside reviews shall be required for all tenure candidates.
3. Outside reviewer’s comments shall be based upon a professional resume and relevant material provided jointly by the chair and candidate to the outside reviewer. In the event that agreement cannot be reached on the relevant material, the department promotion and tenure committee will adjudicate the matter.
4. In all instances a standard letter provided by the Office of Academic Affairs will be used by the department chair for the purpose of submitting material for outside review. When a chair is a candidate, his/her immediate supervisor will handle this process.
3. The vote of the tenured members of the department or unit shall be obtained by the appropriate department or unit administrator in a secret poll, the results of which shall be forwarded with the tenure application.
4. Evaluation of the candidate by other faculty members shall also be considered during the process.
5. The tenure application must be evaluated by the appropriate department chair, college dean, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President before the President submits the tenure nomination to the Board of Regents.
6. The recommendations should be accompanied by supporting materials as listed below:
1. An application in a format to be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs.
2. All annual performance evaluations over the entire term of appointment at UCF.
3. All annual tenure appraisals, if the candidate chooses, over the entire term of appointment at UCF. The reviewers at any stage in the review may request to review the annual tenure appraisals.
4. A summary evaluation by the department chair in a format to be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs.
5. An evaluation of the faculty (candidate) by faculty in a format to be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. These evaluations, which will be made by committees at department, college, and university levels, will be in accordance with the procedures regarding these committees in UCF Rule6C7-3.017(3)(e), 6C7-3.017(3)(f), and 6C7-3.017(3)(g).
7. The evaluation sequence begins with the department chair, then advances to the college dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs to the President. Positive and negative recommendations will be forwarded successively and the faculty member will receive a notice of each recommendation at the time it is forwarded.
8. If the President approves, the nomination will be forwarded to the Chancellor for action by the Board of Regents. The President will provide the nominee with a written report of the final action taken by the Board of Regents on the nomination for tenure.
9. Presidential denial of nomination may be appealed under the applicable UCF grievance procedure (Rules 6C7-3.013 or 6C7-3.0132).

4. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

In addition to the university-wide criteria for promotion and tenure, as detailed in this document, the following criteria will be applicable for all professional engineering faculty nominations.

1. Current professional registration as:
1. An “engineer-in-training” for the rank of assistant professor of engineering, and
2. A “professional engineer” for the ranks of associate professor of engineering and professor of engineering under the laws of a state or territory of the United States. Professional engineering faculty shall give evidence of being registered in Florida.
2. Evidence of continuing education and professional development activities that clearly demonstrate that the individual faculty member has obtained relevant professional competence in an appropriate discipline.
3. Evidence of active professional service with one or more of the Participating Bodies of ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, formerly the Engineer’s Council for Professional Development). Such service herein defined as participation in the affairs of the professional/learned/ technical society as an officer, committee member, or by presentation of papers.
4. The annual review of faculty by the Dean of the College of Engineering shall include certification to higher authority of “satisfaction of continuing qualifications” of a faculty member to be a member of the professional engineering faculty.
5. Recognizing that some of the current engineering faculty/educators may have different personal objectives OR that it may be appropriate to appoint certain applied scientists to the engineering faculty in the future, an exception to item (a) shall be allowed provided that:
1. The affected faculty member shall be appointed “_________of engineering science” and
2. The same requirement for professional development and professional services shall be maintained as requisite for membership in the professional engineering faculty.

Specific Authority: 120.53(1)(a), 240.227(1), 6C-5.225 FAC Law Implemented: 120.53(1)(a), 240.227(1), 240.245, 240.209 (3) (e),(4) 447.203(2) FS History: New 10-8-75; Amended 11-10-77,4-30-81, 8-4-85, 8-14-88, 8-2-89. Formerly 6C7-3.11.Resolution from the Personnel Committee.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on April 7, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995.

Resolution 1994-1995-8 Honorary Degrees

BE IT RESOLVED that the following be adopted as policy for Honorary Degrees at UCF.

1. Candidates for honorary degrees may be nominated from the University of Central Florida community, any other academic community, or from public service areas. The following criteria will be considered:
1. The recipient should bring distinct honor to UCF through his/her eminence, and/or;
2. The recipient should have a significant relationship with UCF, e.g.:
1. As a distinguished alumna or alumnus of UCF, and/or;
2. By providing major assistance in creating a new program, and/or;
3. Through significant contribution to faculty and students, and/or;
4. Through highly beneficial contributions to the welfare of the University.
2. Possible recipients of honorary degrees may be nominated by any member of the UCF community at large. Since the degree conferred will relate to one of the University disciplines and indicate distinguished service for past, present, and/or future contributions to that discipline, it is necessary that the nomination originate from, or have the endorsement of, the appropriate University division or department and dean of appropriate college. In the event that the nominator is from the UCF community at large (without specific division, department, and/or college affiliation), it is mandatory that he/she provide formal documentation that the proposal has been submitted to the appropriate University division or department as well as to the dean of the appropriate college. The nomination should also suggest the formal honorary degree title (e.g., Doctor of Humanities, etc.) sought, although this may be subject to change by the reviewers or by college or University administration.

The nominator will forward the nomination and appropriate documentation to the Chair of the Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions Committee for a recommendation by the Committee. The Chair will forward the Committee’s recommendation to the President of UCF for final action and inform the Chair of the Faculty Senate of the recommendation.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 16.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on March 15, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995:

“We agree with the resolution in principle but request negotiation with Faculty Senate to simplify some of the procedures.”

Resolution 1994-1995-9 Emeritus Status

BE IT RESOLVED that the following be adopted as policy for granting Emeritus status at UCF.

To be eligible for consideration for Emeritus status, a faculty member must be retiring or has retired from UCF, has been a permanent employee at UCF, has tenure at UCF, and hold the rank of Professor or Associate Professor for a minimum of five years immediately prior to retirement.

Any member of the UCF community may nominate an eligible faculty member for Emeritus status.

A nominee must have made major professional contributions while on the faculty of UCF and has been sufficiently established and active at the University to have achieved eminence so that the title Emeritus will be an honor to the individual and to the University. No Emeritus title will include the modifier “acting” and will be confined to the last permanent academic rank held by the nominee. Example: Emeritus Associate Professor.

Documented nominations are to be submitted to the chair of the department with which the candidate is affiliated. The department chair will present the candidate to the department faculty for their comments. The department chair will submit this recommendation along with his/her comments to the dean of the college. The dean will forward all nominations for consideration to the Chair of the Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions Committee with such comments as he or she chooses to make by the deadline date of February 1 of the year.

Each nominee will be considered upon his/her individual merits as documented by the nomination and supporting information.

The Chair of the Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions Committee will transmit Committee recommendations to the Provost, who, in turn, will make recommendations to the President. The Chair of the Committee will also inform the Chair of the Faculty Senate of the recommendations. No award will be considered final and official until it is formally announced by the President.

Privileges for Emeritus faculty. The following benefits are proposed for faculty members who have been officially awarded the Emeritus status:

• Privileges at the University of Central Florida Library;
• Computer account for e-mail;
• Departmental office space where possible and requested;
• University or departmental seminars (conducting) by mutual desire
• Status as an ex-officio member of his/her department faculty; and Exemption from parking fees.

These benefits/privileges are to be effective upon approval by the President.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 16, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on March 15, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995 based on the following clarification from the Senate:

“This note is to confirm the position of Faculty Senate on the privileges for emeritus faculty. We expect the emeritus faculty to participate in matters related to curriculum, etc. WE DO NOT expect them to participate in matters dealing with personnel issues. We wish to leave their voting status (in matters such as curriculum) to the individual departments.”

Resolution 1994-1995-10 ACFS Representative

The faculty of the State University System (SUS) of Florida desire representation on the Board of Regents (BOR) as a member with voice and vote. Until that is achieved, the faculty of the SUS of Florida request that a representative of the ACFS be included on each BOR agenda.

Rationale:

Faculty should participate in policy discussion, debate and decisions that affect higher education in Florida. Participation of faculty is important in matters and issues such as (1) tenure and promotion, (2) evaluation, (3) awards for excellence, (4) curriculum policy and curricular structure, (5) requirements for degrees and granting of degrees, (6) policies for recruitment, admission and retention of students, (7) the development, curtailment, discontinuance, or reorganization of academic programs, (8) grading policies, and (9) other matters of academic concern.

Although faculty are a significant part of the educational system, they have no direct input to BOR policy formulation. Faculty are profoundly affected by BOR policies, since these relate to the performance of their jobs and the evaluation of that performance. At present, students hold a seat on the BOR. Further, each geographic area of the state is represented and university administration has a recognized presence. While the faculty may attend BOR meetings by virtue of the Sunshine law, they are not represented by a faculty member on the BOR.

“While the UFF, as the elected bargaining agent, retains the exclusive right to negotiate and reach agreement on terms and conditions of employment for members of the bargaining unit, and the BOR retains its rights, under law, to manage and direct the SUS, … [i]t is desirable that … [faculty] will have a mechanism and procedure, independent of the collective bargaining process, for making recommendations….” (Preamble UFF/BOR Collective Bargaining Agreement, 1991-1994, page 1.) It is within the spirit of this language that the above resolution is proposed.

This resolution was adopted by the Advisory Council of Faculty Senates (ACFS) at their meeting on February 24, 1995 held in Tallahassee, Florida. The ACFS recommended that the senate at each of the SUS institutions consider endorsing this resolution before it is sent to the BOR for further consideration and action.

Endorsed by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse for endorsement on April 7, 1995.
Update from Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995: This resolution is still being reviewed.

Resolution 1994-1995-11 Budget Funding

WHEREAS, the Senate believes that the formula approach to budgeting known as the Pegasus Model is a reasonable approach to allocating the Instruction and Research portion of the budget of the University of Central Florida; and

WHEREAS, Provost Whitehouse has invited our comments regarding that model, we offer the following concerns and suggestions.

WE ARE INTERESTED IN ASSURING

That productivity factors and other parameters are reasonable and reflect current data; we support the intent of the Administration to periodically review the Pegasus Model and to solicit the views of the Faculty and University Community in doing so.

That when productivity factors are used for allocations within colleges, they are used in a manner consistent with the University’s goals and objectives, particularly where a college’s overall Pegasus productivity factor is a composite of divergent productivity factors of various disciplines comprising that college.

That the Pegasus model allocates capital outlay funding reflecting the comparative needs of various departments and colleges.

That graduate study is funded in ways reflective of the character and diversity of such programs at the University, and that such funding is consistent with the University’s strategic goals and objectives. Different colleges offer different types of graduate programs, such as doctoral studies of traditional form, many different general masters’ degree programs, and a variety of nontraditional and/or professionally oriented degree or certification programs. Moreover, the extent of participation in graduate programs differs across colleges. Therefore, using such broad categories as “graduate” and “thesis/dissertation” in allocating funding for graduate study between colleges may inadequately serve the University’s objectives.

That, all aspects of the Pegasus model allocations have been clearly communicated to the Faculty and University Community. Some aspects of the overall process by which funding is allocated are better understood than others. Various “specials”, employed as devices for allocating funds by means other than by formula, have been employed to deal with special circumstances, needs, or objectives; many of these special allocations have been necessitated by strategic concerns not easily served by the formula allocation process. Some such “specials” are incorporated and explained within the overall Pegasus model; others allocate funds entirely outside the Pegasus Model. We fear that the impartiality of the process may be perceived to be compromised by such “specials”, and that acceptance of the formula budgeting approach itself could be undermined by such perceptions. We support the need for “specials” as budget mechanisms. Our concern, rather, is that the amounts of and rationale for “specials” should be clearly communicated to the Faculty and University Community.

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED therefore, that the Senate

Recommends, applauds, and encourages periodic review of the Pegasus Model’s various components and parameters in the light of experience gained since its inception and as a result of external or internal comparisons.

Recommends that within-college allocations should continue to be left to the colleges themselves; however it suggests that central University administration should monitor and evaluate the impact of the colleges’ internal allocations in terms of their consistency with the University’s overall goals and objectives.

Recommends that consideration be given to adjusting the range for “need factors” for Other Capital Outlay (OCO) to better respond to the comparative needs of the various departments and colleges.

Recommends that serious, thoughtful consideration be given to the impact of present Pegasus allocation methods upon the conduct of graduate programs within the University. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of allocating funds for graduate programs according to productivity data based on categories other than simply “graduate” and “thesis/dissertation”, and/or to recognizing a need for “specials” to address specific situations.

Recommends that it be clearly communicated that the portion of University funding that is not allocated by formula is subjected to systematic review by the administration, guided by the University’s Strategic Plan; that these allocations be communicated to the Faculty and University Community in a format understandable to all; and that such communication should include disclosure of Instruction and Research allocations made outside the Pegasus process. Specific consideration also should be given as to whether or how this process can become an important and explicit link between the University’s annual operating budget and its long-run Strategic Plan.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on April 7, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995.

Resolution 1994-1995-12 Naming University Facilities

BE IT RESOLVED that the following policies and procedures be adopted for naming University facilities.

I. General Policy

The University of Central Florida may recognize the significance of certain events, individuals, or groups, by recommending to the Board of Regents that institutional buildings or other facilities or parts thereof be named in the honor of the event, individual, or group. The University President has the final authority and responsibility for approving the naming of buildings and facilities or parts thereof on behalf of the University, and recommending approval by the Board of Regents in accordance with applicable laws and rules. The President has authority and responsibility for the administration of this policy.

II. General Criteria

1. Buildings, facilities and/or parts thereof may be named for an individual, living or deceased, who is not a University employee but who has distinguished himself or herself through significant contributions to the University. These contributions may be in the form of material gifts, special service, extraordinary achievement in a scholarly discipline, or magnanimous dedication to the betterment of the University or society. In accordance with Section 257.062, Florida Statutes, a University facility may not be named for any living person except as specifically provided by law.
2. As a general rule, University facilities shall not be named for current or former University employees, living or deceased. An exception to this policy may be considered by the President when an individual has made significant contributions to the University.

   In special and limited cases, the President may decide that the contributions of a deceased or retired University employee are of such extraordinary dimension that appropriate recognition would include naming a part of a building, such as an office, classroom, lobby area, laboratory, or auditorium for that individual.

1. No facility, building, or part thereof shall be named for an individual who is currently employed by the University.
2. No request to name a facility, building, or part thereof for a retired or deceased employee will be considered by the University until two years following the date of retirement or date of death.
3. Buildings or facilities or parts thereof may be named for a donor or donors to the University in accordance with the following guidelines:
1. To the extent possible, a building or facility may be named for a donor who makes a gift which is at least 50% of the total construction or replacement cost of the building or facility; or
2. Donors may establish endowments to provide for academic enhancement or for the perpetual maintenance of existing academic facilities or parts thereof. Naming opportunities exist for the recognition of such gifts. Information regarding such naming opportunities are available from the University’s Development Office.

III. Procedure

1. Nominations for naming of buildings or facilities or parts thereof shall be made in writing to the Vice President for University Relations who shall provide a recommendation to the President. The President shall send the nomination and the recommendation to the Commencements Convocations, and Recognitions Committee for review and recommendation.
2. The President has final authority to approve the naming of buildings and facilities or parts thereof on behalf of the University, and to recommend approval by the Board of Regents.

IV. Recognition

If the naming of a building or facility or part thereof is approved by the University President, Board of Regents, and the Florida Legislature as appropriate, the Vice President for University Relations or designee shall be responsible for planning and coordinating appropriate recognition activities and events.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on April 7, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995.

Resolution 1994-1995-13 Graduate Studies
(Not Approved)

WHEREAS, The growth of quality graduate education is one of the University’s five strategic goals;

WHEREAS, There is a need to ensure quality graduate education such that program and university standards established by the faculty are observed;

WHEREAS, The Office of Graduate Studies interacts and counsels widely across the institution, especially in fostering cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs;

WHEREAS, The Office of Graduate Studies provides clear and consistent advocacy for the principles and ideals of graduate education, unburdened by budgeting, fund raising, and other external pressures; and

WHEREAS, The Office of Graduate Studies is responsible for ensuring that areas such as financial aid, housing, counseling, health, insurance, and student governance are responsive to graduate student needs;

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that (1) the Office of the Provost assure that the support systems available to the Office of Graduate Studies are adequate to accomplish the tasks expected of that Office; and (2) the position of Director of Graduate Studies be made a full-time position, subject to availability of resources.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on April 7, 1995.
Returned by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995:

“While we agree with the spirit of this resolution, I must decline the proposal based upon the principle that University administration reserves the right to make administrative assignments. There are also, of course, issues relative to financial uncertainties on campus.”

Resolution 1994-1995-14 Resource Allocation Models

WHEREAS, Several resource allocation models (such as Pegasus, Tuition Waiver, Research Overhead Return) exist at the University of Central Florida; and

WHEREAS, Adjustments to these models must be made periodically in order to match available resources with the University’s goals and objectives; therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED that all such models be based upon current data and factors which (1) are as precisely and as simply defined as possible, (2) allow meaningful and straightforward comparisons both within and external to the SUS, (3) can be updated on a biannual basis or more frequently, (4) give appropriate weight to academic emphases determined by faculty and administrators providing input on the models, and (5) are consistent with the strategic goals of the University.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on April 7, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995.

Resolution 1994-1995-15 Topic Courses

BE IT RESOLVED,

1. A list and description of special topic courses approved at the college level will be compiled by a designee of the Office of Academic Affairs and circulated to all deans’ offices and to all chairs within the University. If any dean’s office or a chair objects, in writing, to any course on the list, that course will be placed on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee for its consideration. Attempts to resolve any areas of controversy will be made prior to the scheduled meeting of the Committee.
2. This same list and description of college approved special topic courses will also be reviewed by the designee of the Office of Academic Affairs, the Chair of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee, and all members of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee. If any of the above mentioned feel there is any reason for a special topic course to be reviewed by the Committee, it will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Committee.
3. All special topic courses that are determined to be non-controversial, after review as described in (1) and (2) above, will be placed on a consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee. Any member of the Committee may move to remove a special topic course from the consent agenda for a detailed review by the Committee.
4. Approved special topic courses may be taught a second time without further review. Before a special topic course can be offered a third time, it must be approved as a permanent addition to the catalog. All permanent course additions, must be reviewed at the University Committee level for approval.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 23, 1995.
Transmitted to Provost Gary Whitehouse on April 7, 1995.
Approved by Provost Whitehouse on May 2, 1995.

Top of Page